Mukesh Chunnilal Bhatia vs The Government Of Maharashtra Through Crime Branch Unit 11 Mumbai

CNR No : HCBM010476902025


2.cri.revn.480.2025 C1.doc
Digitally
signed by
VINA
ARVIND
KHADPE
Date:
2026.10.31
17:00:51
+0530
VINA
ARVIND
KHADPE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.480 OF 2025
Mukesh Chunnilal Bhatia
Age : 46 years; Occupation : Business
Residing at – Flat No.C/701, Gokul Nagar,
Near Parekh Nagar, Kandivali (West),
Mumbai – 400067 … Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
through Crime Branch - Unit 11 Mumbai … Respondent
*
Mr. Shekhar K. Jagtap a/w Ms. Sairuchita Chowdhary, Mr. Ajinkya
Jagdale, Mr. Akash Pandey i/b. J. Shekhar Associates for Applicant.
Mr. Sagar Agarkar, APP for Respondent-State.
PI Balasaheb Kakade, D.C.B. C.I.D., Kandivali, Unit – II.
*
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 30 OCTOBER, 2026
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. At the outset, learned APP raised a preliminary objection that
the present Revision Application has become infructuous because,
during the pendency of the Revision Application, the charges have
already been framed and the trial is already proceeding and as many
as 9 witnesses have been examined. He relied on the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Vs. Raj Kumar Arora [Criminal Appeal No.1319 of 2013 Judgment
dated 17.04.2025].

Vina Khadpe 1
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 17:06:28

2.cri.revn.480.2025 C1.doc
3. In answer, learned Counsel Mr. Jagtap, appearing for the
Revision Applicant, relied upon Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and anr. [(2022) 15 SCC 720] in support of his submission
that, even if charges have been framed and notwithstanding the
Judgment of Supreme Court in DRI Vs. Raj Kumar Arora (Supra) , the
High Court can still exercise its jurisdiction under Section 397 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC for short) and hear the matter
on merits. Inviting the Court’s attention to paragraphs 11 to 17 of
Sanjay Kumar Rai (supra), it is contended that 3-Judges Bench of
Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that ‘seeking discharge’ is a
valuable right provided to the Applicant-accused and the same cannot
be taken away by contending that the Revision has become
infructuous. He submitted that this position holds the field so far as
exercise of jurisdiction is concerned. He further submitted that in DRI
Vs. Raj Kumar Arora (Supra), the issue under consideration was
about exercise of power under 216 of CrPC for alteration of charges
and therefore the present case will not be governed by DRI Vs. Raj
Kumar Arora (Supra) because in the present case, the Applicant-
accused is not invoking any power under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. and
the basic order rejecting the discharge was under challenge in this
revision, when the charges were framed. He has also relied upon
Shankar Genaji Wavalkar Vs. State of Maharashtra 2025 SCC Online
Bom 4529 and Abhishek Kumar Paul Vs. State of Jharkhand Cr.
Revision No. 313/2022 - 2023:JHHC:30476 in support of his case.
4. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
Judgments.

Vina Khadpe 2
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 17:06:28

2.cri.revn.480.2025 C1.doc
5. In paragraph 38 of DRI Vs. Raj Kumar Arora (supra), the issue
framed by Supreme Court is as under :
“III. Once charges have been framed by the competent
Court under Section 228 of CrPC, can an accused thereafter
seek for discharge / deletion of a particular offence from
the charges under Section 216 of CrPC ?”
6. Even though issue no.3 speaks about Section 216 of CrPC, the
ultimate analysis and proposition of law laid down by the Supreme
Court in paragraph 154 is as under :
“154. We are in agreement with the view that once charges
have been framed by the Trial Court in exercise of the
powers under Section 228 Cr.P.C., the accused cannot
thereafter be discharged, be it through an exercise of the
powers under Sections 227 of 216 CrPC. It is reiterated that
the language of Section 216 Cr.PC provides only for the
addition and alteration of charge(s) and not for the deletion
or discharge of an accused. If the Legislature had intended
to empower the Trial Court with the power to delete a charge
at that stage, the same would have been expressly and
unambiguously stated. Therefore, at such a stage of the
trial, the accused must necessarily either be convicted or
acquitted of the charges that were so framed against him.
No shortcuts must be allowed.”
(emphasis supplied)
7. It cannot be disputed that the jurisdiction that is invoked in the
present case is under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. It is also not disputed that

Vina Khadpe 3
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 17:06:28

2.cri.revn.480.2025 C1.doc
the impugned order in the present case is an order dated 27.01.2025
passed by the Special Judge for cases under MCOC, TADA, POTA, NIA
& UAPA, City Civil and Sessions Court, Court Room No.25, Gr.
Mumbai, below Exhibit 213 in Special Case No.1276 of 2021 under
Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
8. By the said impugned order, Revision Applicant / Accused no.3,
is discharged from the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(ii),
3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime, 1999
(MCOC Act for short), however, the learned Trial Judge has not
discharged the Applicant from offences punishable under Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short).
9. The Court is informed that the said order of discharging the
Applicant from the offence punishable under MCOC Act, is subject
matter of challenge by the State in Appeal No. 577 of 2026 under
Section 12 of MCOC Act, 1999. Be that as it may.
10. Therefore, the scope of the present Revision is to see whether
the impugned order refusing to discharge the Applicant from the
offences punishable under IPC can be sustained.
11. The undisputed sequence of events in this case is that the
impugned order is passed on 27.01.2025. Apparently, the present
Revision Application was affirmed on 30.04.2025. Since, there was a
delay in filing the Application, the delay was condoned by the order
dated 17.09.2025. Since, there was no interim relief in favour of the
Revision Applicant, on 17.12.2025, charges are framed by the Trial
Court under Section 120B, 149, 307, 324, 326, 504, 506(2), 143,

Vina Khadpe 4
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 17:06:28

2.cri.revn.480.2025 C1.doc
144, 147, 149, 269 of IPC and sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act,
1959, and Sections 135 and 37(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act,
1951.
12. It appears from the record that in the interregnum bail
applications have traveled to this Court as well as Supreme Court,
and under the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 21.10.2024,
the Trial Court was directed to conduct the trial expeditiously and
preferably on day-to-day basis.
13. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is clear that
during the pendency of the Revision, aforesaid charges were framed
and pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the trial has
proceeded expeditiously and as many as 9 witnesses have already
been examined.
14. In the Judgment relied upon by the Applicant of Sanjay Kumar
Rai (supra), while holding that the right to seek discharge is a
valuable right, the 3-Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
added a caveat, which can be seen from paragraph 14 of the said
Judgment. The Supreme Court has observed as under :
“As a caveat it may be stated that the High Court, while
exercising its aforestated jurisdiction ought to be
circumspect. The discretion vested in the High Court is to
be invoked carefully and judiciously for effective and timely
administration of criminal justice system.” (emphasis
supplied)
15. Therefore while considering the challenge under section 397 of

Vina Khadpe 5
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 17:06:28

2.cri.revn.480.2025 C1.doc
CrPC to order refusing to discharge the accused under section 227 of
CrPC, if the charges are already framed during pendency of revision,
this Court is mandated by the 3-Judges’ bench of the Supreme Court
to be circumspect about aspects touching effective and timely
administration of justice. Therefore following aspects assume
importance :
(a) stage of trial and number of witnesses already examined
and (b) precious judicial time of the Trial Court already
invested in the case and of course (c) the nature of offence
involved.
16. Already scope of revision under section 397 of CrPC while
considering impugned order refusing to discharge, is limited as
explained in State of Gujarat v/s. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao. (2023) 17
SCC 688. In this judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was
considering whether the High Court was justified in allowing
discharge application, which was rejected by the Trial Court. In
paragraph 17 of the said judgment, it is observed as under :
“17. The revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court
and start appreciating the evidence by finding out
inconsistency in the statement of witnesses and it is not
legally permissible. The High Courts ought to be cognizant
of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an
application for discharge.”
17. This limited scope of revision under section 397 of CrPC is now
further narrowed down, in view of mandate in paragraph 154 of DRI

Vina Khadpe 6
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 17:06:28

2.cri.revn.480.2025 C1.doc
Vs. Raj Kumar Arora (supra) where it is clearly held that post framing
of charges, accused can not be discharged.
18. Therefore revision-applicants/accused, especially standing in
such position viz. ‘charges framed and/or trial proceeded further
during pendency of revision’ can not insist on detail consideration of
chargesheet material as if for re-appreciation.
19. Viewed in the light of the what is observed above, when the
impugned order is perused, it is seen that the incident is out come of
a dispute between the complainant and the accused in connection
with one plot at Dashisar (West). It appears that on 18.07.2021,
when the Complainant with his father, partner, two sons and
Advocate were at the disputed plot, at around 3.00 am, about 15 to
20 persons came and attempted to remove the board erected and
when the Complainant objected, the person declared that the plot
belonged to somebody else and if the Complainant did not go away,
the Complainant and others would be killed. When the Complainant
attempted to show the documents, those persons rushed to the auto
rickshaw and took out swords, iron rods, wooden logs and assaulted
the complainant, his father, partner, two sons and his Advocate. As
the assaulting persons declared that if anybody comes in between
then they would be killed, nobody intervened.
20. On the basis of complaint filed, FIR came to be registered and
investigation started, statements of the witnesses were recorded. The
investigation revealed that the unknown persons who had assaulted
were acting under the directions of the head of organization crime

Vina Khadpe 7
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 17:06:28

2.cri.revn.480.2025 C1.doc
syndicate. Considering such involvement, the investigation was taken
up by the DCB, CID, Unit II, Mumbai and the offences came to be
registered.
21. The learned Judge has considered various orders passed by this
Court while granting bail as well as other orders arising out of the
litigation between the parties including civil litigation. State had
relied on statements of the eye witnesses which indicate presence of
the present Applicant in commission of the offence. Financial
transaction is apparently involved in dispute about the plot.
Prosecution is relying upon CDR / SDR in order to show the regular
contact between the accused inter se . Dangerous weapons such as
sword, iron rod, wooden rod are involved, which are recovered and
seized at the instance of accused.
22. Considering the aforesaid material, it is obvious that neither
the Trial Court nor this Court can enter into ‘a mini-trial’.
23. Lastly, it is important to note that Abhishek Kumar Paul (supra)
was rendered on 30.08.2023 when DRI Vs. Raj Kumar Arora (supra)
was not rendered. Therefore, the mandate of the Supreme Court
could not have been considered by the the learned Single Judge of
Jharkhand High Court. Also, when learned single Judge of this Court
rendered Shakar Genaji Wavalkar (supra) on 18.11.2025, apparently
DRI Vs. Raj Kumar Arora (supra) was neither relied upon by the State
nor shown to the learned Single Judge. Discharge application was
allowed in the facts of that case. Therefore, the said two Judgments
will not help the Revision Applicant.

Vina Khadpe 8
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 17:06:28

2.cri.revn.480.2025 C1.doc
24. Therefore, the impugned order, refusing to discharge the
Applicant from offences punishable under IPC, cannot be faulted.
There is no reason to interfere. Criminal Revision Application is
dismissed.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

Vina Khadpe 9
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 17:06:28
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)